| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front Economy | |
| UAW against USD 13.4b loan | |
| 2008-12-20 | |
| The United Auto Workers union says it will act against "unfair conditions" imposed by George Bush's USD 13.4b dollar rescue loan. If the companies go out of business just think how unfair life is going to be. You might want to discuss the matter with any Studebaker-Packard workers you can find. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said Friday that he will work closely with Barack Obama's administration following its takeover in January to guarantee fair conditions for all auto workers. He's apparently too dim to conceive of the entire U.S. auto industry crumbling away. I guess the residents of Herculaneum felt about the same way. "While we appreciate that President Bush has taken the emergency action needed to help America's auto companies weather the current financial crisis, we are disappointed that he has added unfair conditions singling out workers," Gettelfinger said in a statement. "We will work with the Obama administration and the new Congress to ensure that these unfair conditions are removed as we join in the coming months with all stakeholders to create a viable future for the US auto industry." "We will work with the Obama administration and a Democratic Congress to gut the measure that's been enacted at the expense of the taxpayer because we don't think it benefits us enough." The main US carmakers, GM and Chrysler, on the brink of bankruptcy, have been offered a USD 13.4b in government loans by the Bush Administration. GM and Chrysler will receive the government helping hand in exchange for tough reforms including more flexible work rules and cuts in wages to make the companies competitive with foreign manufacturers established on US soil.
My suggestion would be to break them up into autonomous companies and let them sink or swim. There's no reason for Dodge to drag Plymouth under, or vice versa. GM's already laid the Oldmobile to rest -- too much like your father's Olds, I understand. "These conditions were not included in the bipartisan legislation endorsed by the White House, which passed the House of Representatives and which won support from a majority of senators," Gettelfinger said. Rather than routinely paying out a significant percentage of cash flow to routine executive bonuses, they might try pouring that money in the direction of designers and engineers. The golden age of the U.S. auto industry was when they were turning out '56 and '57 Chevies, Fords, and Plymouths. The silver age came only a few years later with the GTO and its competitors, but they were already concentrating on "longer, lower, leaner, wider." Since then, with only a few notable exceptions, they've been noted for such inovations as the opera window and the vinyl top. And paint falling off. We can't forget that, though it's not the designers' fault that in the '80s you could buy an American car and expect the paint to flake off most of the front of the vehicle in a couple years. At the same time you could buy a Nissan or a Toyota and given geologic ages the paint would eventually erode, but only after heavy glaciation. The exceptions, by the way, have been what kept the industry afloat: the minivan, the Jeep Cherokee that evolved into all sorts of SUVs, the PT Cruiser, and... ummm... it'll come to me... The union has already made "substantial sacrifices" to help make the Big Three automakers more competitive, Gettelfinger said. He added: "All stakeholders -- management, directors, bondholders, suppliers, dealers, workers -- will have to participate in shared sacrifices to help the industry move forward." | |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #19 thx NS |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-12-20 20:25 |
| #18 I believe it's total UAW cost, active and retired, divided by UAW hours. So if they have non-union hourlies, which I doubt, they aren't in it either. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-12-20 19:44 |
| #17 IIUC - they are "average pay" = total compensation (UAW positions)/number of workers (UAW positions). Please someone correct me if that's wrong. I don't believe it includes Exec (non-UAW) positions |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-12-20 19:33 |
| #16 anyone i know here in the south that works in any kind of plant that makes anything that goes into a car would feel "lucky" too make $20 an hr so where do they pull these figures out of? Executives pay included? |
| Posted by: rabid whitetail 2008-12-20 18:52 |
| #15 NS is correct, the $75/hr quote includes all compensation, including health/pension/jobs bank/union squeak/etc. That said, the Southern autoworker $48/hr often-quoted includes same. YMMV, but not your facts, UAW. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-12-20 18:12 |
| #14 RJ, I'll bash the UAW with the best, but nobody is being paid $75/hour to work on the line at any car company. That figure is the total personnel cost divided by each hour of labor. It includes the pay to the employee (about $28/hour, I believe. So 56K$/year is still good pay, but not $75/hour.), benefits to the employee including employer Social Security, health care pension provision, dental, vision, and non-direct employee costs such as retiree health care, unfunded retiree pension, and job bank. It probably includes the cost of the HR organization as well. So does it cost a lot for GM to have workers? Yes. Does it all go to the guy on the line? No. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-12-20 17:40 |
| #13 You just can't continue to lose money on every product you sell and expect to stay in business. But you can always make it up on volume, right? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2008-12-20 17:26 |
| #12 Love the in lines. The one you forgot is UAW members paid $75/hour are going to be sucking off the teat of people earning half that. |
| Posted by: regular joe 2008-12-20 14:37 |
| #11 Two choices, gentlemen. Restructure or death. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2008-12-20 13:48 |
| #10 The UAW doesn't seem to grasp their dire position. You confuse the worker with the leadership. The 'leadership' could give a rat's ass about the future of their workers. It's about power, all the way down into the bunker. Rational people saw the 'writing on the wall' a long time ago, but the leadership isn't about rational. It's about power. The lemmings are just along for the ride [like the other true believing lemmings who've dragged the rest of us along with the Donk's unsustainable socialist agenda]. |
| Posted by: P2k on holiday 2008-12-20 12:29 |
| #9 abu do love you they have already started too move factories south. they closed one near Atlanta about a year ago. But anyway if they moved those plants into my neighborhood most folks would readily take a paycut over what most the folks are making just too keep a job |
| Posted by: rabid whitetail 2008-12-20 12:06 |
| #8 The UAW knows Bush is now gutless and won't let GM go BK in his last month in office. Harry and |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-12-20 11:22 |
| #7 The UAW isn't afraid of plant closings, and the companies cant move operations south because all the current workers will just go on 'job bank' |
| Posted by: Abu do you love 2008-12-20 10:46 |
| #6 The UAW doesn't seem to grasp their dire position. When the layoffs and closings REALLY start, how long will that jobs fund hold out? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-12-20 09:25 |
| #5 Going on strike are they? (Waiting until after the holiday 95% paid vacation of course) Well that settles it. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-12-20 08:15 |
| #4 Doesn't Ford have factories abroad? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-12-20 07:48 |
| #3 $17.4B This is GWB's bridge to nowhere. |
| Posted by: Muggsy Glink 2008-12-20 02:16 |
| #2 I'll know the big 3 are serious when they start to move their factories South to Right To Work states. Though it seems that Ford thinks they have a handle on things at this time. Having Congress and the UAW running the show ought to kill off GM and Chrysler in minimum time. |
| Posted by: tipover 2008-12-20 01:06 |
| #1 The union has already made "substantial sacrifices" to help make the Big Three automakers more competitive, Yeah.... right.... Well if the big three start permanently shutting down factories, then the UAW (or rather their workers) will make "substantial sacrifices". You just can't continue to lose money on every product you sell and expect to stay in business. Isn't this taught in 'Business 101' or something? I'm sure the union bosses won't have to make any 'sacrifices'..... The Democrats will insure that. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-12-20 00:46 |